Vol. 4, No. 1, 61-71
doi:10.17708/DRMJ.2015.v04n01a05
THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL APPLICATION
IN SLOVENIAN FIRMS
Daša Farčnik
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
[email protected]
Tjaša Redek
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Economics
Kardeljeva ploščad 17, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia
[email protected]
Abstract
This paper analyses the characteristics of the model of open innovation in Slovenia. On the basis of activities that are
defined by the model of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) 222 companies are divided into three groups : companies
that do not apply open innovation activities, companies with limited scope of activities of open innovation and companies engaged in the majority of open innovation activities. Three groups of firms also differ with regard to the organizational structure, attitude of staff and management towards the open innovation activities, expenditures for
research and development and success of the introduction of new products, process innovation and success of these
products and services on the market. Analysis combines the dominant model of innovation model with the open innovation model. Further on it is encouraging that all three groups do not differ regarding their future plans of introducing the model of open innovation activities.
Keywords: innovation, open innovation model, innovation success
1. INTRODUCTION
The model of open innovation, according to
Chesbrough (2006) represents the opposite of the
classical understanding of development and innovation in enterprises. The classic definition of innovation assumes that the development of ideas and
new products takes place within the company,
which then produces and market them. In contradiction to prevailing traditional or »vertical« paradigm of innovation, the model of open innovation
builds on the inflow and outflow of both internal
and external elements in the creation of ideas and
products, and then, when the product is designed,
the marketing also focuses on the internal and external elements (Chesbrough, 2004, 2006). The
boundaries of the company in a model of open innovation are not clearly defined, but the model assumes flow of information internally and externally.
The porosity of the borders, which is actually intentional, is also one of the key elements of the model,
as it allows development on the basis of internal
and external information, ideas and knowledge, but
also allows the transfer of ideas, information and
knowledge externally.
Slovenia, as a small and open economy, in
which exports account for over three quarters of
GDP is strongly integration into international production chains and adopted the export-oriented
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
61
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
growth model (SORS, 2014). GDP at purchasing
power parity in Slovenia currently reaches 82 percent of the average EU28 and is classified as the
under-developed state. The economy can on still
grow through the transfer of knowledge as well as
lower factor costs, but to a lesser extent as before.
Thus, the innovativeness is crucial for the development of Slovenia. This has been confirmed by the
World Economic Forum (2008) that since 2007 ranks
Slovenia among the countries that grow through innovation ("innovation-driven") and not among the
countries that are growing due to increased efficiency ("efficiency driven"). This of course means
that the country must still invest additional resources in development of its own innovative products and services, which will be competitive on the
global markets and at the same time it will increase
the share of global value added. The openness of
the economy and the integration into international
production chains allows Slovenian companies either direct or indirect access to many sources of information, new ideas and accumulated knowledge
that can facilitate the development of new products, services or enable process innovation. In addition, inclusion in global value chains enables
Slovenian companies also to provide it's knowledge
within their chains and facilitate the development
in partners and thus contribute to better or cheaper
final products. These knowledge spill-overs are the
central point of the model of open innovation,
which is therefore seen as an extremely interesting
concept for Slovenian companies.
The purpose of this paper is therefore to examine the practice of the open innovation activities
and link them to the prevailing model of innovation,
in which the importance and organization of research and development department and the investments in research and development is
particularly emphasizes. The aim of this paper is to
identify if the companies that implement more
open innovation activities are also those companies
that have already developed innovation activities.
Based on that, the Slovenian firms will be distributed with regard to the intensity of the open innovation activities.
Based on a questionnaire from 222 Slovenian
companies conducted in September 2012, using
Ward's analysis of the groups, the companies are
62
initially divided into three groups based on the (intensity) of the activities of open innovation. Further
on the differences in means of other innovation activities and elements of genetic material are compared with Tukey's method (Tukey, 1949). The
contribution therefore provides one of the first papers that links open innovation with a dominant
model of innovation in enterprises and examines
the within group differences in the product and
process innovation success.
The paper is structured as follows: after the introduction, there are three chapters. The second
chapter provides short description of the open innovation model; the third describes the objectives
of the paper, the data used and the methodology.
In chapter four the results are represented and the
last chapter provides conclusions and discusses
some practical recommendations.
2. THE OPEN INNOVATION MODEL
The literature on innovation is very broad and a
large number of definitions of, innovation models,
as well as models of the impact of innovation on the
economy in the broadest sense innovation have
been developed. Starting from the current definition
of innovation as applied by the Community Innovation Survey, the main international research in the
field of innovation, innovations are divided into
product or process innovations, whereby both new
or significantly improved product (or service) as well
as the process (production, support services, distribution, etc..) are an innovation if a product or
process represent both novelty to the firm, but not
necessarily for the market (Eurostat, 2012). Innovation depends on many factors and over time the
focus has shifted from one to the other factor. Based
on the innovation literature review Damanpour
(1991), for example, found that the authors expose
the whole multitude of factors that account to over
10. In theory key determinants of innovation in the
company should be then, specialization, centralization, management attitudes toward changes, professionalism, centralisation, functional differentiation,
management stability, technological competence (in
original technological knowledge), the availability of
free resources, company’s organization, organiza-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
tional structure and internal as well as external communication and information flow. Damanpour has
also reviewed the literature that began to focus on
the wider importance of other (soft/intangible ) factors, such as the internal organization in the broadest sense) and external factors (see eg. The Von
Hippel, 1988, which inter alia highlights the importance of the consumer).
ders are purposive and the knowledge flows inward
and outward. This two-way flow is the core of the
model of open innovation summarized in Figure 1.
The model of open innovation is particularly
important for Slovenia, because of the openness of
the economy and therefore intensive integration
into the world economy. According to the Statistical
Figure 1: The open innovation model
Source: Adopted by Chesbrough, 2006, figure 1.2.
Chesbrough (2003) combined a combination of
factors that are both external and internal in a comprehensive model of open innovation. The model
emphasizes that the ideas for innovation are created in the company itself but also the business environment can serve as an important source of ideas
or as an external technological knowledge base (Figure 1). At the same time the company can influence
the innovation activity of other companies, if parts
of its knowledge and information are available also
externally (eg. intellectual property out-licensing,
selling unused or unutilized, free dissemination of
knowledge). By definition (Chesbrough, 2003) the
model of open innovation builds on both the inflows
and outflows of knowledge with a purpose to promote and strengthen innovation activity in the enterprise and the same time the opening of 'market'
for outdoor use of new products / services. The
company therefore acts as an agent that combines
ideas, knowledge and technology. Traditionally,
companies preferred to draw inward knowledge and
not to provide or "give" it to the outside, but based
on the open innovation model the company's bor-
Office (SURS, 2015), exports to the EU (mostly in
Germany) represented 79 percent in 2013 and imports from EU represented almost three-quarters of
all imports.
Openness of the economy also means that
Slovenian companies have access to the latest ideas
and knowledge, which is directly relevant to exporters, and firms can also draw ideas and knowledge from importing. This fosters learning, which is
one of the key factors in the growth of export - oriented economies (Helpman et al., 2004; Stiglitz and
Greenwald, 2014). Companies with open borders
can therefore transfer the knowledge through supply chain to the other domestic companies. The
question of course is how intensely companies are
aware of the opportunities and to what extent the
companies draw or share knowledge and information. This area of study in Slovenia is studied to a
limited extent. The link between companies and
learning has been studied by Prašnikar et al. (2012)
and the model of open innovation has been also
studied by Rangus and Drnovšek (2013), Rangus
(2014) and Pustovrh (2014).
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
63
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
Previous research on the use of open innovation
model show that, on average, Slovenian companies
are aware of the potential of open innovation model,
but are currently focusing primarily on the inflow of
information and knowledge (inbound activities) and
not on outflow activities (outbound activities). This
means that the model is not applied fully, which in
particular means that the national economy has not
achieved the desired or potential knowledge spillovers between firms yet (Farčnik, Redek and Trobec,
2014). However, Slovenian companies can be divided
into several groups with regard to activities in the
field of open innovation (Ranugs, 2014).1 Prašnikar
et al. (2012) further finds that the learning of companies is often the result of external factors, in particular the cooperation with companies in the value
chain, suppliers and customers and the absorption of
ideas from the competition which therefore implies
that these are the inbound activities of the open innovation model. The use of information and knowledge is mainly dependent on firm’s genetic material
(competences, abilities, strategic orientation, work
processes, inventory and human resource management, Nelson and Winter, 1982).
3. GOALS AND THE ME
3.1 Goals
The contribution builds on previous related research and connects the model of open innovation
with the prevailing model of innovation, where research and development (R&D) departments, their
organization and strategic position within the company and the resources allocated to R&D are the key
factors. Based on the company’s intensity of open innovation activities the firms are distributed in groups
and between groups differences in R&D activities are
investigated. The main research question is, whether
the companies that largely implement open innovation activities are the ones that have already developed R&D activities in general (the R&D activities
that are included in the prevailing model of innovation). In addition we disentangle the innovation success in success related to the product innovation and
the success related to the process innovation, while
most of the research so far has focused only on product innovation. By linking concepts of genetic material (Nelson and Winter, 1982) and innovation, we
also shed some light on the importance of the organizational structure of the company, employee relationships, management support and openness of the
organization for innovation activity in the company.
3.2 Data
As part of the international project " Open Innovation Network " and with the cooperation of the
Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Slovenia an
international survey on the open innovation practices defined by the model of open innovation (Chesbrough, 2003) was sent to the members of the
Chamber (owners or managers or heads of development ) in September 2014. The questionnaire included the assessment of the implementation of the
open innovation practices, future plans regarding
the application of open innovation practices and the
organisational characteristics. In addition, questions
regarding the mainstream R&D activities were
added (Redek et al., 2010; Prašnikar, ed., 2010,
Prašnikar et al., 2011). Data was collected for 222
companies, which on average employ of 69 workers.
Model of open innovation includes the following activities: (1) customer and consumer co-creation in R&D projects; (2) crowd sourcing, (3)
scanning for external ideas, (4) collaborative innovation with external partners (i.e. suppliers, universities, competitors…), (5) subcontracting R&D, (6)
idea & start up competitions, (7) using external networks (e.g. associations, intermediaries, knowledge
brokers), (8) participation in standardization (public
standards) / influencing industry standards, (9) free
revealing (e.g. Ideas, IP) to external parties, (10) IP
in-licensing, (11) IP out-licensing, (12) external technologies acquisition, (13) selling unutilized / unused
technologies. The intensity of the implementation
of certain activities were captured using an 8- point
scale (1 -not performed, 2 - very rarely performed
and 8 - very intense performed). Respondents plans
1 Based on the open innovation activities Rangus (2013) classifies companies into four groups, namely open innovators who carry out all the activities of open innovation; systems engineering companies or solution implementers
that are using all activities except renting R&D, R&D outsourcers and customer oriented companies.
64
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
for changes in the intensity of the implementation
of the above activities were described using a fivepoint scale (2 - significant reduction, 0 – unchanged,
2 - a significant increase).
Other information on companies’ innovation
activities were collected based on the questionnaire
from Redek et al. (2010). The questionnaire covered
the performance characteristics of the R&D department (if there is one, what are its functions), information on the amount of R&D expenditure and the
importance and perception of the role of R&D
spending in terms of strengthening competitive advantages. Respondents also provided information
on the success of the introduction of different types
of process and product innovation and characteristics (innovativeness) of both types of innovation.
Respondents also provided a lot of information
about the company. Based on a 7-point scale (1 completely disagree, 7 completely agree), we have
analysed the organizational structure, employee relations, management support of the R&D activities
and openness of the organization. In that manner the
education and training of employees on open innovation, employees’ perceptions on the introduction
of new ideas and technologies, employees’ reward
system for outstanding innovation, management
support for open innovation, openness of the firm’s
borders, the participation of employees in the search
for information and knowledge and in the exchange
of knowledge , design of organizational structure in
line with the needs of the model of open innovation,
and the introduction of interactive tools and methods for participating in open innovation.
3.3 Goals and the methodology
The model of open innovation shall encourage
innovation activity in enterprises because it allows
a faster flow of information and learning, but also
has a beneficial effect on other businesses and
therefore on the long term also promotes innovation. Regarding the analysis of the implementation
of the open innovation activities in Slovenian firms,
we formed the following research questions:
1) What are the differences in the implementation
of each activity of the model of open innovation
in Slovenian companies?
2) Is there a link between the intensity of each activity of the model of open innovation and innovation activities of the company in general
and its performance success?
3) Is there a link between the intensity of each activity of the model of open innovation and attitude toward the innovation of the company
itself?
In order to answer the research questions, we
first distribute firms regarding the intensity of the
open innovation activities and second we check for
the between groups differences. Based on the thirteen questions on the intensity of the activities defined by the model of open innovation, companies
are classified into three groups with Ward's method
of cluster analysis. The method is particularly suitable for ordinal responses it forms groups on the
basis of n groups of size 1. On the basis of minimizing the sum of squares and loss of information three
groups were selected.
For companies classified in each group the
mean values of other variables are calculated. Differences in mean values were calculated on the
basis of the Tukey’s method of comparison that simultaneously performs pair-wise comparison
(Tukey, 1949) and not all the group means at once,
such as the classic analysis of variance (ANOVA).
Below we present the differences between the average values of the two groups at least at the 5% significance level. If the difference is statistically
significant between all the clusters, the significance
level is described by the star next to the result. If
one cluster statistically significantly differs from the
other two, the significance level is assigned only to
the result of that cluster.
4. RESULTS
4.1 Clustering
By using Ward's clustering method companies
are classified into three groups. The first group are
companies that do not or very rarely implement the
activities defined in the open innovation model and
present 19.4 percent of the sample (40 companies).
The second group of 83 companies (40.3 percent of
the sample) is characterized by a limited extent
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
65
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
and/or less frequently performance open innovation activities. The third group with also 83 firms
consists of companies that to a greater extent than
the second group of companies perform all these
activities and in accordance to the literature (eg .
Chesbrough, 2003 Rangus, 2014) can be described
as "open innovators".
a confirmative answer for the particular category or
R&D characteristic. Only 3 percent of companies in
the first cluster have organized R&D department,
the share of those is 20 percent second cluster, and
51 percent in the third cluster. In the third cluster of
firms – the firms that are open innovators, the R&D
department is statistically significantly more present
Figure 2: Average values of the frequency of using open innovation activities for clusters of firms
Note: IP means intellectual property
Source: Own research, 2014.
Regarding the future plans of the application of
open innovation activities, there is no significant difference between groups. This means that, on average, companies that do not currently apply open
innovation activities or apply then to a limited extent, they intend to increase the application in the
future.
4.2 Open innovation and the R&D
The three clusters of vary according to having a
R&D department and its role in the company. Table
1 shows the shares of companies that are provided
66
than in the other two groups (see significance next
to the result for the third cluster) and provides systematic support for solving problems arising in the
company. In the companies in the third cluster the
R&D department also provides an absorption capacity of the collection, storage and dissemination of
technological information, it sets guidelines for the
technological development of the company, and
plays the role of an agent of change. To a lesser extent, unlike companies that do not carry out activities open innovation, the R&D department is
important for the formation of independent industrial design capabilities.
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
Table 1: R & D characteristics by clusters, as a % of all companies the cluster
R&D in the
company
Systematic support of
the R&D department
R&D dep. builds the
abortion capacity
R&D dep. sets
the guidelines
Industrial design in
R&D dep.
Cluster 1
2.7%
11.8%
2.9%
5.7%
0.0%
Cluster 2
20.3%
29.7%
17.7%
17.2%
12.7%
Cluster 3
50.6% *
54.9% *
47.9% *
43.5% *
24.3%
a
Notes: Data show the shares of companies with individual elements. * Denotes statistically different from the average value at the 5 %
significance level. a indicates a statistically significant difference in the average value at the 5 % significance level only from the first
cluster and not the second.
Source: Own research, 2014.
Table 2: R&D expenditures for clusters of firms, as a % of all companies the cluster
At least 1%
of revenues
for R&D
Cluster 1
16.7% *
Cluster 2
46.2%
Cluster 3
55.2%
More than 3%
of revenues
for R&D
R&D expenditures
not considered
entirely as a cost
2.8%
R&D expenditures
are a competitive
advantage
Strategic
importance of
R&D expenditures
15.2% *
15.2% *
6.5% *
18.0%
42.9%
39.4% *
42.2% *
36.8% *
61.1% *
66.7% *
66.2% *
Notes: The data shows the percentage of firms that answered the questions with "Yes". * denotes statistically different value from the
average value at the 5 % significance level.
Source: Own research, 2014.
Table 2 shows the difference between clusters
on R&D expenditures and the role of the expenditures for the future development of the firm.
Open innovators (firms in the third cluster) on
average spend a higher proportion of revenues on
R&D, but also have different attitudes to these expenditures. Almost two-thirds of these firms do not
consider R&D expenditures merely as a cost, but
they represent an important facilitator of innovation
and represent a source of competitive advantage
and thus growth. Consequently, the R&D expenditures have a strategic importance for the company.
Regarding the importance or the role of the R&D expenditures we also find different treatments between cluster 1 and 2. Companies in the second
companies (ie companies that to a limited extent
carry out activities identified by the model of open
innovation), on average, more often consider R&D
expenditures as a source of competitive advantage
and believe they represent a strategic importance
for the firm.
4.3 Between cluster difference in the success in
product and process innovations
Companies in the first cluster are significantly
less successful in introducing new products in the
last five years since only a quarter of these companies have introduced a new product that represented a novelty in the relevant market. The share
of successful firms in introducing new projects in the
second cluster is in 51%, and 64 % in the third. At
the same time, fewer companies (23%) in the first
cluster have introduced new products that were
new on the relevant market they supply, compared
to companies in the second cluster (44%) and in the
third group (52%). However, we find no statistically
significant differences between companies in the
second and third clusters, which means, that the
frequency of open innovation activities does not significantly affect the success of the introduction of
new products. However, the differences between
the moderate innovators open (cluster 2) and open
innovators (cluster 3) mainly occur when introduc-
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
67
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
ing new products, which are a novelty on the world
market (not only on a local or regional). Thus, 35
percent of all open innovators have introduced a
product that is new in the world, while the share of
such companies in the second group statistically significantly lower (11%).
In terms of process innovation, companies that
have not applied open innovation activies are on average less successful than companies that are moderately or fully introduced the model. Only 13
percent of companies in the first cluster introduced
process innovation in the last three years. The share
of such firms was more than half (53%) in the second
cluster and 71 percent in third cluster. Similarly, the
companies in the first cluster, to a lesser extent significantly improved production processes of goods
and services, and processes of logistics, delivery or
distribution of elements, products and services. We
find no statistically significant differences in terms of
introducing process innovation between companies
in the second and the third cluster.
4.4 Selected organizational characteristics of the
clusters
Differences between firms in three clusters according to the selected organizational characteristics are shown in Table 3. On average, companies
vary in providing education and training on open innovation and employee and management support
for open innovation. Companies in the first cluster
devote fewer resources to education and training
on open innovation, as well as management support
is smaller than in the second and third cluster. Otherwise, the firms in the first cluster significantly differ from the other two clusters since they developed
less positive attitude towards the introduction of
new ideas and technologies and the use of knowledge and technology from the outside the borders
of their own business. Given that these companies
are on average not (yet) applying open innovation
activities, employee remuneration in is smaller. As
it has already been mentioned, the differences between firms in cluster 2 which to a limited extent
carry out activities of open innovation, and open innovators (cluster 3) for the last three mentioned organizational characteristics are not statistically
significant.
Open innovators are more likely to encourage
the active participation of employees in the search for
knowledge, for what they have created interactive
tools and methods for participating in the activities
of open innovation. At the same time organizational
structure is designed in accordance with the needs of
the firm. The boundaries of these companies are
more open and allow in/out-flow of knowledge. To a
Table 3: Average values regarding the genetic material, by clusters
Education
and training
on open
innovation
Positive attitude
towards introduction
of new ideas and
technologies
Positive attitude towards
application of knowledge
and technology of other
firms
Rewarding
employees based
on introduction of
new ideas
Management
support for
open
innovations
Cluster 1
3.2 *
4.2 *
4.0 *
3.4 *
4.1 *
Cluster 2
4.2 *
5.1
4.8
4.3
5.0 *
Cluster 3
5.1 *
5.5
5.0
4.6
5.6 *
Active participation
of employees in
knowledge formation
Organisation structure
based on the innovation
needs
Interactive tools
and methods for
OI participation
Open
borders of
firm
Cluster 1
4.0 *
3.3 *
3.8 *
3.1 *
Cluster 2
4.9
4.5 *
4.8 *
3.9 *
Cluster 3
5.4
5.5 *
5.0 *
4.8 *
Notes: The data show the average value on a scale from 1 - completely disagree and 7 - completely agree. * Denotes statistically
different from the mean value of the 5 % confidence level.
Source: Own research, 2014.
68
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
lesser extent this applies to firms in the second cluster. Companies that do not implement open innovation activities, have on average more closed borders
and of course less -developed tools and methods for
participating in open innovation.
5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
Using survey data of 222 Slovenian companies
and using Ward's clustering method the firms are
classified into three clusters as based on the application and frequency of open innovation activities.
First cluster represents the companies that (still) do
not carry out open innovation activities, the second
cluster are companies, which to a limited extent and
/ or less frequently use these activities, and in the
third cluster are "open innovators " , that are companies that often use activities identified by the
model of open innovation.
In the empirical exercise, we analyzed the relationship between the several dimensions of innovation activities in general and open innovation
activities, since based on the theory of innovations,
the open innovation activities are related and influence other innovation features. The data shows that
companies that carry out activities identified by the
model of open innovation, have on average also
more likely developed R&D departments and the
department has a strategic role in the company. This
cluster of companies devotes a larger share of revenues to research and development. This implies
that companies, which are otherwise active in the
field of innovation, are also more active in the field
of open innovation. The information and knowledge
in these firms are obtained either within or outside
the firm and are a source of competitive advantage.
However, the performance comparison between
companies in the three groups shows that the differences between the second and third group are small
and insignificant, but companies in both groups
more successful in product and process innovation
from the companies in the first group. "Open innovators" have also developed an appropriate organizational structure and encourage employee
relations and support of the manaegemnt in order
to support and promote the activities in the field of
open innovation. Similarly, this also holds for the
companies in the second group, particularly with regards to the attitude of employees and their remuneration. This however is not true for companies in
the first group.
The paper links the two models of innovation:
the dominant model, which is based primarily on
the role of the R&D department, and a model of
open innovation. The results show a clear link in the
development of the R&D department and introduction of the open innovation model. At the same
time, we however find that with regard to the success in process and product innovation, all the open
innovation activities are not directly necessary. We
actually find that based on a sample of Slovenian
companies, the open innovation model complements dominant innovation model.
This paper offers several recommendations for
managers of Slovenian companies. It is appropriate
to complement the existing models of innovation
with the open innovation model and opening firms’
borders. Companies that are constantly looking for
ideas outside the company, cooperate with various
stakeholders and allow outbound sharing of their
knowledge, are on average more successful in introducing new products that are not only new to the
regional but also on the global market. Successful
companies also have more developed R&D department, which has a strategic role in the company.
This might lead to a conclusion that the application
of only the model of open innovation, does not offer
gaining or maintaining competitive advantage. For
a successful application the open innovation model
the firm must adopt an adequate organizational
structure, human resource management and management support.
EXTENDED SUMMARY / IZVLEČEK
Model odprtih inovacij po besedah Chesbrougha (2006) predstavlja nasprotje klasičnemu razumevanju razvoja in inoviranja v podjetjih. Klasična definicija inovacij naj bi namreč predpostavila, da podjetje samo znotraj podjetja oblikuje
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
69
Daša Farčnik, Tjaša Redek: The Characteristics of the Open Innovation Model Application in Slovenian Firms
ideje in razvija nove proizvode, jih nato proizvede in trži. Model odprtih inovacij v nasprotju s to 'vertikalno' paradigmo,
kot pravi Chesbrough (2004, 2006) stremi k temu, da podjetje namerno uporablja tako notranje kot tudi zunanje prvine
pri oblikovanju idej in proizvodov in se nato, ko je proizvod oblikovan, pri trženju ravno tako opre na vse razpoložljive
prvine, notranje in zunanje. Meje podjetja tako v modelu odprtih inovacij niso jasno začrtane, pač pa model predpostavlja
prehajanje informacij navznoter in navzven. Poroznost mej, ki pa je pravzaprav namerna, je ravno tako eden ključnih elementov modela, saj omogoča razvoj na podlagi notranjih in zunanjih informacij, idej, znanja, hkrati pa omogoča tudi prenos
idej, informacij in znanja navzven. Slovenija, kot majhno in odprto gospodarstvo, v katerem izvoz predstavlja dobre tri
četrtine BDP (SURS, 2014) in je tako močno vpeto v mednarodne proizvodne verige, raste predvsem s pomočjo izvoznousmerjenega modela rasti. Tako je za slovenski razvoj inovativnost ključnega pomena, saj mora država vedno več vlagati v
razvoj lastnih inovativnih proizvodov in storitev, s katerimi bo prodirala na globalne trge končnih proizvodov in si na drugi
strani tudi povečevala delež v globalno ustvarjeni dodani vrednosti.
Prispevek nadgrajuje pretekle raziskave in poveže model odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inoviranja,
kjer se kot ključni dejavnik omenjajo oddelki namenjeni raziskavam in razvoju, njihova organizacija in strateška pozicija
znotraj podjetja ter sredstva namenjena raziskavam in razvoju. Vprašanje je namreč, če so podjetja, ki v večji meri izvajajo
aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja, tudi tista podjetja, ki že uporabljajo model odprtih inovacij kot prevladujoč model inoviranja.
Z namenom preučitve komplementarnosti obstoječega modela inoviranja in modela odprtih inovacij je bila v septembru 2014 izvedena anketa o razširjenosti uporabe trinajstih aktivnosti, ki so opredeljene v modelu odprtih inovacij
(Chesbrough, 2003), o njihovi prihodnji uporabi ter o organizacijskih značilnostih podjetij. Podjetja so podala tudi številne
druge informacije o inovacijski dejavnosti v podjetju (vprašalnik iz Redek in ostali, 2010). Vprašalnik je zajel značilnosti delovanja oddelka raziskav (ali obstaja, kaj so njegove naloge), podal informacije o višini izdatkov za raziskave in razvoj ter
pomenu in percepciji vloge trošenja za raziskave in razvoj v smislu krepitve konkurenčnih prednosti. Respondenti so
orisali tudi uspešnost uvajanja različnih tipov procesnih in proizvodnih inovacij ter značilnosti (naprednost) obeh tipov inovacij.
Na podlagi odgovorov 222 slovenskih podjetij so podjetja z Wardovo analizo skupin najprej razdeljena v tri skupine
glede (intenzivnosti) izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja. V prvi skupini je 40 podjetij oziroma 19,4 odstotkov vseh opazovanih podjetij, ki ne izvajajo oziroma zelo redko izvajajo dejavnosti opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V drugi
skupini je 83 podjetij oziroma 40,3 odstotkov vseh opazovanih podjetij, ki v omejenem obsegu in manj pogosto izvajajo
dejavnosti, opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij. V tretji skupini pa je prav tako 83 podjetij, ki izvaja večinoma vse
omenjene dejavnosti in bolj intenzivno kot v drugi skupini in jih v skladu s smernicami domače in tuje literature (npr. Chesbrough, 2003, Rangus 2014) lahko imenujemo »odprti inovatorji«. Glede na intenzivnost izvajanja aktivnosti odprtega inoviranja so podjetja v nadaljevanju obravnavana ločeno po skupinah.
V nadaljevanju smo razlike v povprečnih vrednostih ostalih inovacijskih dejavnosti in elementov genetskega materiala
primerjali s Tukey-jevo metodo (Tukey, 1949). Podatki kažejo, da imajo podjetja, ki izvajajo aktivnosti opredeljene z modelom odprtih inovacij, v povprečju tudi bolj pogosto razvite oddelke raziskav in razvoja. Ti oddelki imajo hkrati tudi strateško
vlogo v podjetju. Ta skupina podjetij nameni tudi večji delež prihodkov raziskavam in razvoju. Tako so podjetja, ki so tudi
sicer bolj aktivna na področju inovacij, tudi bolj aktivna na področju odprtega inoviranja, in so informacije pridobljene
bodisi znotraj ali zunaj podjetja vir njihovih konkurenčnih prednosti. Primerjava uspešnosti med podjetji v treh skupinah
pa kaže, da so razlike med drugo in tretjo skupino majhne in neznačilne, so pa podjetja v obeh skupinah bolj uspešna pri
produktni in procesni inovativnosti od podjetij v prvi skupini. »Odprti inovatorji« imajo tudi drugačno organizacijsko strukturo in razvijajo odnose zaposlenih in vodstva do inovacij tako, da s tem spodbujajo oziroma podpirajo tudi aktivnosti s
področja odprtih inovacij. Poleg tretje skupine to v veliki meri velja tudi za podjetja v drugi skupini, predvsem kar se tiče
odnosa zaposlenih in njihovega nagrajevanja. To pa ne drži za podjetja v prvi skupini.
Tako prispevek ponuja eno prvih raziskav povezave odprtega inoviranja s prevladujočim modelom inovacijske dejavnosti v podjetjih in preučuje razlike v uspešnosti skupin glede produktnih kot tudi procesnih inovacij. Rezultati kažejo
jasno povezavo razvitosti oddelka raziskav in razvoja na uvajanje modela odprtega inoviranja. Hkrati pa kažejo, da sicer za
uspešnost podjetij pri produktnih in procesnih inovacijah, niso potrebne vse dejavnosti odprtega inoviranja. Oba modela
se na vzorcu slovenskih podjetij celo komplementarno dopolnjujeta.
70
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
REFERENCES
Chesbrough, H. W. (2003). Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.
Boston: Harvard Business Press.
Chesbrough, H. (2004). Managing Open Innovation:
Chess and Poker. Research-Technology Management,
47, 1 (January), 23-26.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation: A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation. In
Chesbrough, H., Vanhaverbeke, W., & West, J. (ed.).
Open Innovation: Researching a New Paradigm. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 1-12.
Damanpour, F. (1991). Organizational innovation: A metaanalysis of effects of determinants and moderators.
Academy of Management Journal, 34 (3), 555-590.
Dewar, R. D., & Dutton, J. E. (1986). The adoption of radical and incremental innovations: An empirical analysis. Management Science, 32, 1422-1433.
Eurostat (2012). Retrieved: 2.4.2015 on the webpage
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/203647/20
3701/CIS_Survey_form_2010.pdf/b9f2c70e-0c464f82-abeb-c7661f1f2166.
Farčnik, D., Redek, T., & Trobec, D. (2014). Learning of
Slovenian firms through open innovation. In: Prašnikar,
J.(ed.). Industrial policy in retrospective. Ljubljana:
Časnik Finance, 241-258.
Helpman, E., Melitz, M. J., & Yeaple, S. R. (2004). Export
versus FDI with heterogeneous firms. American Economic Review, 94, 300-316.
Kimberly, J. R., & Evanisko, M. (1981). Organizational innovation: The influence of individual, organizational,
and contextual factors on hospital adoption of technological and administrative innovations. Academy of
Management Journal, 24, 689 - 713.
Miller, D., & Friesen, P. H. (1982). Innovation in conservative and entrepreneurial firms: Two models of strategic
momentum. Strategic Management Journal, 3, 1-25.
Nelson, R. R., & Winter, S. G. (1982). An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press.
Prašnikar, J. (ed.) (2010). The role of intangible assets in
exiting the crisis. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance, 187-202.
Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., Drenkovska, M., & Voje, D. (2012).
Innovation in Slovenia as indicator of companies’ genetic material potential. In Prašnikar, J. (ed.). Comparing companies’ success in dealing with external
shocks: the case of the Western Balkans, Mediterranean countries and core European countries. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance: 363-388.
Prašnikar, J., Redek, T., & Drenkovska, M. (2011). Methodological challenges of measuring intangible capital in
developing countries: the case of innovation activity.
Paper presented at the 2011 International conference
for entrepreneurship, innovation and regional development, Skopje, 5-7 May 2011.
Pustovrh, A. (2014). Odprti inovacijski sistemi in njihovi
učinki na strategije rasti malih in srednje velikih podjetij. Doktorska disertacija, forthcoming.
Rangus, K. (2014). Nagnjenost k odprtemu inoviranju:
razvoj konstrukta, determinante in rezultati. Doktorska disertacija. Ljubljana: Ekonomska fakulteta.
Rangus, K., & Drnovšek, M. (2013). Open innovation in
Slovenia: A comparative analysis of different firm
sizes. Economic and Business Review, 15 (3), 175–196.
Redek, T., Kopriva, G., Mihelič, N., & Simič, M. (2010). Investments in intangible activities: innovation in the
Slovenian manufacturing sector. In: Prašnikar, J. (ed.).
The role of intangible assets in exiting the crisis. Ljubljana: Časnik Finance, 2010, 149-159.
Stiglitz, E. J., & Greenwald, C. B. (2014). Creating a Learning Society. New York: CUP.
SURS (Statistični urad Republike Slovenije) (2015). SI-Stat.
Online database. Retrived 12.3. 2015 on webpage:
http://pxweb.stat.si/pxweb/Database/Ekonomsko/Ek
onomsko.asp#03.
Tukey, J. (1949). Comparing Individual Means in the
Analysis of Variance. Biometrics, 5 (2), 99-114.
Von Hippel, E. (1988). Sources of Innovation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
World Economic Forum (2008). Global competitiveness
report 2008. Geneva: WEF. Retrived 10. 3. 2015 on
webpage http://www.weforum.org/pdf/GCR08/
Slovenia.pdf
Dynamic Relationships Management Journal, Vol. 4, No. 1, May 2015
71